Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has more in its favour on paper. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM gathers more light for low light and background blur; the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is lighter and cheaper.
Choose the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for
- less weight (695g vs 1070g)
- a lower price (about £1,120 vs £1,660)
Choose the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for
- a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light)
| RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Canon | Canon |
| Focal length | 70-200mm | 70-200mm |
| Maximum aperture | f/4 | f/2.8 |
| Weight | 695 g | 1070 g |
| Stabilisation | Yes | Yes |
| Weather sealing | Yes | Yes |
| Filter size | 77mm | 77mm |
| Made for | Full frame | Full frame |
| New price | £1,599 | £2,799 |
| Used at MPB (Canon RF / RF-S) | £1,079–£1,159 | £1,519–£1,799 |
Frequently asked questions
Is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM better than the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM?
The RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM offers less weight (695g vs 1070g), a lower price (about £1,120 vs £1,660); the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM offers a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light).
Which is better value, the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM or the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM?
On Canon RF / RF-S, the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM costs about £1,120 against about £1,660 for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (MPB used where listed, otherwise new; checked 5 November 2026).
Is f/2.8 worth it over f/4?
f/2.8 gathers about 1.0 stops more light, which helps indoors, at night and for background blur. If you mostly shoot in good light, the slower lens is usually lighter and cheaper.
Do both lenses fit the same cameras?
Both are available for Canon RF / RF-S.